Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:02:10 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 21:05:17, Gareth McCaughan wrote: >Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> My statement was written in 1997. In general Lisp _was_ interpreted. Of >> course, so was BASIC. Yet there were basic compilers as well. My primary >> point was speed. Lisp is slow. It always was slow. It always will be slow. > >There were plenty of decent Lisp compilers in 1997. > >> LISP is like a host of other programming languages that have their place. >> Prolog. Snobol4. Even COBOL. And used in their place, they work well. But >> high-performance computing is _not_ their "place". > >Just so that we know how much weight to give to this statement >(in comparison, say, with what Tord Romstadt has been saying), >could you briefly summarize your experience with Lisp in the >last 10 years? Thanks. > Last time I used lisp was about 1992-1993, working on a natural language parser. However, I don't see what that has to so with the price of rice in Thailand... I haven't programmed a Cray in Assembly language in 10 years, but I can tell you _exactly_ what the strong points of the machine are, today... I also haven't programmed in FORTRAN since about 1994, when we retired Cray Blitz. Care to have a FORTRAN battle of programming skills? So, again, your point would be??? We are talking about _efficiency_ of the executable, not about efficiency of the programmer... >-- >g
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.